From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 10 21:30:01 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D836D08 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B27D16B2 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s3ALU18k036644 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) id s3ALU10g036643; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:30:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:30:01 GMT Message-Id: <201404102130.s3ALU10g036643@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Marius Strobl Subject: Re: kern/186891: [puc] [patch] MCS9922 based card not known X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Marius Strobl List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 21:30:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/186891; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Marius Strobl To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, bsd@dino.sk Cc: Subject: Re: kern/186891: [puc] [patch] MCS9922 based card not known Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:26:56 +0200 --0rSojgWGcpz+ezC3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline The submitted patch seems inherently bogus; the referenced function puc_config_saturn() doesn't exist/isn't provided and it's always a bad idea to add an entry for a device that potentially is part of a line of controllers with different port configurations and all having the same vendor and device ID combination as a wildcard match to puc(4). However, most importantly, MCS9922 apparently are multi-function devices providing one UART per function so puc(4) shouldn't be used in the first place but uart(4) should be tought to probe and attach these controllers directly instead. Could you please revert your patch for puc(4) and test whether the attached one provies you with two instances of uart(4) for that card? Marius --0rSojgWGcpz+ezC3 Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="uart_mc9904.diff" Index: uart_bus_pci.c =================================================================== --- uart_bus_pci.c (revision 264257) +++ uart_bus_pci.c (working copy) @@ -135,6 +135,8 @@ "MosChip MCS9901 PCIe to Peripheral Controller", 0x10 }, { 0x9710, 0x9904, 0xa000, 0x1000, "MosChip MCS9904 PCIe to Peripheral Controller", 0x10 }, +{ 0x9710, 0x9922, 0x0000, 0x0000, + "MosChip MCS9922 PCIe to Peripheral Controller", 0x10 }, { 0xdeaf, 0x9051, 0xffff, 0, "Middle Digital PC Weasel Serial Port", 0x10 }, { 0xffff, 0, 0xffff, 0, NULL, 0, 0} }; --0rSojgWGcpz+ezC3--